Ouch. Let's hope this isn't Freddie Mitchell all over again.Imagine drafting anyone not named Marcus Smith?Imagine drafting him or Denard??ShaHBucks said:I would have drafted Bradley Roby last year instead of Smith and never had any problemsJetMaxx said:How would you have improved the secondary?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
Heres everyone that went after 22.
C Dee Ford DE Auburn
CIN Darqueze Dennard CB Michigan State
SD Jason Verrett CB Texas Christian
PHI Marcus Smith DE Louisville
ARI Deone Bucannon SS Washington State
CAR Kelvin Benjamin WR Florida State
NE Dominique Easley DT Florida
SF Jimmie Ward SS Northern Illinois
DEN Bradley Roby CB Ohio State
MIN Teddy Bridgewater QB Louisville
Oh yea it's a long list. But it's even worse because we had to drop 10m per for a FA DB. One draft pick affected so much, imagine if we had that 10m per to use elsewhere.Imagine drafting anyone not named Marcus Smith?Heres everyone that went after 22.Imagine drafting him or Denard??ShaHBucks said:I would have drafted Bradley Roby last year instead of Smith and never had any problemsJetMaxx said:How would you have improved the secondary?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
C Dee Ford DE Auburn
CIN Darqueze Dennard CB Michigan State
SD Jason Verrett CB Texas Christian
PHI Marcus Smith DE Louisville
ARI Deone Bucannon SS Washington State
CAR Kelvin Benjamin WR Florida State
NE Dominique Easley DT Florida
SF Jimmie Ward SS Northern Illinois
DEN Bradley Roby CB Ohio State
MIN Teddy Bridgewater QB Louisville
This is too soon all around IMO. Lets give all of them time to see what they truely are. Some times (see Brandon Graham) things just take some time.Imagine drafting anyone not named Marcus Smith?Imagine drafting him or Denard??ShaHBucks said:I would have drafted Bradley Roby last year instead of Smith and never had any problemsJetMaxx said:How would you have improved the secondary?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
Heres everyone that went after 22.
C Dee Ford DE Auburn
CIN Darqueze Dennard CB Michigan State
SD Jason Verrett CB Texas Christian
PHI Marcus Smith DE Louisville
ARI Deone Bucannon SS Washington State
CAR Kelvin Benjamin WR Florida State
NE Dominique Easley DT Florida
SF Jimmie Ward SS Northern Illinois
DEN Bradley Roby CB Ohio State
MIN Teddy Bridgewater QB Louisville
Just to clarify, you think that Byron Maxwell will be worse than Bradley Fletcher?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.
That is what he is implying, yes. Insanity.Just to clarify, you think that Byron Maxwell will be worse than Bradley Fletcher?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.
The definition of the word "production" is not subjective. Your expectations are completely subjective. So is what you find impressive. So if you want to say, "He didn't live up to my expectations" or "I didn't think he looked impressive" then say that, because that's what you actually mean here, you're stating your opinion on the matter.I guess "not that productive" is totally subjective. To me, it meant that he didn't run as well as I expected him to. Maybe my expectations of him were different then yours, or another fans. But to me, his season wasn't overly productive and impressive. Could be because he's not as good, or maybe was hurt, or maybe my expectations too high, or maybe just the way the coach used him. But if Chip didn't want to use him, then I'd rather a guy that fits what Chip wants to do, and a guy that our coach (not myself) is comfortable using the way he wants. This guy(s) is Murray (and mathews). I think a lot over 50% of NFL fans/analysts would say that we improved overall at RB.I'm absolutely willing to conceded that Shady has a decent year, but not the year you'd expect for a guy being drafted somewhere between 1st - 3rd overall for fantasy purposes.Can't we all just agree that Shady had a decent year, but not the great one we may have all expected. And that Murray+Kiko > Shady in Chip's style of offense? Murray is more the runner he wants, and we got Kiko too. Not sure how this isn't an upgrade any way you spin it.His usage? How about the lack of his usage in the passing game where he recorded career lows across the board? He got 37 targets last year - that's 18 less targets than he received as a rookie when he only started 4 games. They even gave Sproles a few goalline carries for good measure. Again, a 1,300 yard season on 300 carries - good for third best in the NFL and the second best of his career. One of only two players to get 300 carries. The only production issue that McCoy had was not being called on in the passing game like he had in years past.his numbers were a result of his usage. I'm an Eagles fan plus owned him in fantasy. He was very disappointing. Sproles was so much better last year. They got rid of him for a reason. He dances too much. Having long runs to even out all of your two yard losses is good for your rushing average, but it doesn't fix all the drives that stall because it's 3rd and 9 after your two carries.Oh, sorry about that - I thought you were the same person.I never say "wasn't that productive", someone else did. But ranking 11th out of 15 RBs who had 200 carries in Y/A isn't that productive. I used 200 attempts because I wanted to minimize guys who had a couple big runs which would skew the numbers. When a RB stays healthy and is given a 300+ carry workload he should get 1300 yards. What I deem productive is what you do with your workload. Around 4.5 y/a I would deem to be a good RB1. 4.2 is what I expect from an average guy. His overall numbers suggest RB1 because of his usage, but when you normalize his production he wasn't that great.You said he "wasn't that productive" before and just doubled down above, is there a different context you wanted me to use? Does unproductive mean something entirely different than "not that productive"?There you go using unproductive again.
His 4.2 Y/A was well under his career average. For RBs who had a minimum of 200 attempts that would rank him 11th. Only Alfred Morris, Matt Forte, Joique Bell and Andre Williams had a lower Y/A. That's not that productive.
I'm not sure what magic number you would deem as "productive," but 4.2YPC is productive to me. As is 1,300 yards on the season. And the 200 attempts stat is pretty lame - he got 200+ attempts because he was getting 4+ YPC.
My bigger point is everyone basically ####ting all over McCoy when he turned in a RB1 season in 2014. He didn't get his 18 rushing TD's or 2,000+ combined yards last year, but to say he's "not that productive" is patently false from any historical context, including the history from just last year.
Again with that 200 cap man - do away with it. You don't get to put a floor of 200 carries if you want to make any legitimate point with your statistics. "He ranked 11th out of 15 on this arbitrary statistic I've come up with." He ranked 3rd overall in rushing yards last year. Who cares about "only for RB's that had more than 214 carries, and at least 40% of those carries had to come on the same days where they breast fed from their mother more than 4 times in one day as a child." The fact that there are only 15 RB's out of 30 starters who can fit your criteria says quite a bit. Why don't we cap it at 300 carries and that way you can say, "He was the least productive back by any measure for RB's with over 300 carries last year."
You want to normalize his production when he played for a full 16 games? You realize a 1,300 yard season puts you in the top 10 every year for the past 5 years and in the top 5 for 3 of those years? YPC seems like an awfully foolish tool to use - my guess is you're going to want a RB on your squad who can carry the ball 300 times in a season. Walter Payton averaged 4.4 YPC for his career. LaDainian Tomlinson averaged 4.3 YPC. You're going to tell me that McCoy's 4.2 makes him "Just a guy. "
Again, we're talking about production. The production last year... 1,319 yards, the second most productive rushing total of his career. Feel free to say otherwise, but McCoy was productive last year.
Receptions per year:
78
48
54
52
28
Seems like a pretty drastic fall there.
I'm just tired of all this bull#### "unproductive" talk. A guy like Steven Jackson was unproductive.
So you're saying "productive" isn't subjective? Exactly what YPC is "productive" is 4.4 productive and 4.3 isn't productive? What is your exact standards which you say is an objective standard.The definition of the word "production" is not subjective. Your expectations are completely subjective. So is what you find impressive. So if you want to say, "He didn't live up to my expectations" or "I didn't think he looked impressive" then say that, because that's what you actually mean here, you're stating your opinion on the matter.I guess "not that productive" is totally subjective. To me, it meant that he didn't run as well as I expected him to. Maybe my expectations of him were different then yours, or another fans. But to me, his season wasn't overly productive and impressive. Could be because he's not as good, or maybe was hurt, or maybe my expectations too high, or maybe just the way the coach used him. But if Chip didn't want to use him, then I'd rather a guy that fits what Chip wants to do, and a guy that our coach (not myself) is comfortable using the way he wants. This guy(s) is Murray (and mathews). I think a lot over 50% of NFL fans/analysts would say that we improved overall at RB.I'm absolutely willing to conceded that Shady has a decent year, but not the year you'd expect for a guy being drafted somewhere between 1st - 3rd overall for fantasy purposes.Can't we all just agree that Shady had a decent year, but not the great one we may have all expected. And that Murray+Kiko > Shady in Chip's style of offense? Murray is more the runner he wants, and we got Kiko too. Not sure how this isn't an upgrade any way you spin it.His usage? How about the lack of his usage in the passing game where he recorded career lows across the board? He got 37 targets last year - that's 18 less targets than he received as a rookie when he only started 4 games. They even gave Sproles a few goalline carries for good measure. Again, a 1,300 yard season on 300 carries - good for third best in the NFL and the second best of his career. One of only two players to get 300 carries. The only production issue that McCoy had was not being called on in the passing game like he had in years past.his numbers were a result of his usage. I'm an Eagles fan plus owned him in fantasy. He was very disappointing. Sproles was so much better last year. They got rid of him for a reason. He dances too much. Having long runs to even out all of your two yard losses is good for your rushing average, but it doesn't fix all the drives that stall because it's 3rd and 9 after your two carries.Oh, sorry about that - I thought you were the same person.I never say "wasn't that productive", someone else did. But ranking 11th out of 15 RBs who had 200 carries in Y/A isn't that productive. I used 200 attempts because I wanted to minimize guys who had a couple big runs which would skew the numbers. When a RB stays healthy and is given a 300+ carry workload he should get 1300 yards. What I deem productive is what you do with your workload. Around 4.5 y/a I would deem to be a good RB1. 4.2 is what I expect from an average guy. His overall numbers suggest RB1 because of his usage, but when you normalize his production he wasn't that great.You said he "wasn't that productive" before and just doubled down above, is there a different context you wanted me to use? Does unproductive mean something entirely different than "not that productive"?There you go using unproductive again.
His 4.2 Y/A was well under his career average. For RBs who had a minimum of 200 attempts that would rank him 11th. Only Alfred Morris, Matt Forte, Joique Bell and Andre Williams had a lower Y/A. That's not that productive.
I'm not sure what magic number you would deem as "productive," but 4.2YPC is productive to me. As is 1,300 yards on the season. And the 200 attempts stat is pretty lame - he got 200+ attempts because he was getting 4+ YPC.
My bigger point is everyone basically ####ting all over McCoy when he turned in a RB1 season in 2014. He didn't get his 18 rushing TD's or 2,000+ combined yards last year, but to say he's "not that productive" is patently false from any historical context, including the history from just last year.
Again with that 200 cap man - do away with it. You don't get to put a floor of 200 carries if you want to make any legitimate point with your statistics. "He ranked 11th out of 15 on this arbitrary statistic I've come up with." He ranked 3rd overall in rushing yards last year. Who cares about "only for RB's that had more than 214 carries, and at least 40% of those carries had to come on the same days where they breast fed from their mother more than 4 times in one day as a child." The fact that there are only 15 RB's out of 30 starters who can fit your criteria says quite a bit. Why don't we cap it at 300 carries and that way you can say, "He was the least productive back by any measure for RB's with over 300 carries last year."
You want to normalize his production when he played for a full 16 games? You realize a 1,300 yard season puts you in the top 10 every year for the past 5 years and in the top 5 for 3 of those years? YPC seems like an awfully foolish tool to use - my guess is you're going to want a RB on your squad who can carry the ball 300 times in a season. Walter Payton averaged 4.4 YPC for his career. LaDainian Tomlinson averaged 4.3 YPC. You're going to tell me that McCoy's 4.2 makes him "Just a guy. "
Again, we're talking about production. The production last year... 1,319 yards, the second most productive rushing total of his career. Feel free to say otherwise, but McCoy was productive last year.
Receptions per year:
78
48
54
52
28
Seems like a pretty drastic fall there.
I'm just tired of all this bull#### "unproductive" talk. A guy like Steven Jackson was unproductive.
If you told a NFL head coach, "Here is a RB, he will get you 1,300+ yards and 4+ YPC," The coach is going to recognize that as productive because by any historic definition of RB production in the NFL - it is productive.
I certainly agree with you that Mathews + Murray is an upgrade over McCoy + Polk, but I think McCoy alone is better than either one of the guys. Both of your new guys are hurt quite often and Murray was behind an excellent Oline last year. The more and more I think about this, the more and more I think you guys are going to miss McCoy in hindsight.
Ok so you agree Mathews+Murray is an upgrade over Mccoy + Polk. This whole thing stemmed from me disputing that our RB moves "were a push". I said we have improved at the RB position... which you have just agreed on. End of story.The definition of the word "production" is not subjective. Your expectations are completely subjective. So is what you find impressive. So if you want to say, "He didn't live up to my expectations" or "I didn't think he looked impressive" then say that, because that's what you actually mean here, you're stating your opinion on the matter.I guess "not that productive" is totally subjective. To me, it meant that he didn't run as well as I expected him to. Maybe my expectations of him were different then yours, or another fans. But to me, his season wasn't overly productive and impressive. Could be because he's not as good, or maybe was hurt, or maybe my expectations too high, or maybe just the way the coach used him. But if Chip didn't want to use him, then I'd rather a guy that fits what Chip wants to do, and a guy that our coach (not myself) is comfortable using the way he wants. This guy(s) is Murray (and mathews). I think a lot over 50% of NFL fans/analysts would say that we improved overall at RB.I'm absolutely willing to conceded that Shady has a decent year, but not the year you'd expect for a guy being drafted somewhere between 1st - 3rd overall for fantasy purposes.Can't we all just agree that Shady had a decent year, but not the great one we may have all expected. And that Murray+Kiko > Shady in Chip's style of offense? Murray is more the runner he wants, and we got Kiko too. Not sure how this isn't an upgrade any way you spin it.His usage? How about the lack of his usage in the passing game where he recorded career lows across the board? He got 37 targets last year - that's 18 less targets than he received as a rookie when he only started 4 games. They even gave Sproles a few goalline carries for good measure. Again, a 1,300 yard season on 300 carries - good for third best in the NFL and the second best of his career. One of only two players to get 300 carries. The only production issue that McCoy had was not being called on in the passing game like he had in years past.his numbers were a result of his usage. I'm an Eagles fan plus owned him in fantasy. He was very disappointing. Sproles was so much better last year. They got rid of him for a reason. He dances too much. Having long runs to even out all of your two yard losses is good for your rushing average, but it doesn't fix all the drives that stall because it's 3rd and 9 after your two carries.Oh, sorry about that - I thought you were the same person.I never say "wasn't that productive", someone else did. But ranking 11th out of 15 RBs who had 200 carries in Y/A isn't that productive. I used 200 attempts because I wanted to minimize guys who had a couple big runs which would skew the numbers. When a RB stays healthy and is given a 300+ carry workload he should get 1300 yards. What I deem productive is what you do with your workload. Around 4.5 y/a I would deem to be a good RB1. 4.2 is what I expect from an average guy. His overall numbers suggest RB1 because of his usage, but when you normalize his production he wasn't that great.You said he "wasn't that productive" before and just doubled down above, is there a different context you wanted me to use? Does unproductive mean something entirely different than "not that productive"?There you go using unproductive again.
His 4.2 Y/A was well under his career average. For RBs who had a minimum of 200 attempts that would rank him 11th. Only Alfred Morris, Matt Forte, Joique Bell and Andre Williams had a lower Y/A. That's not that productive.
I'm not sure what magic number you would deem as "productive," but 4.2YPC is productive to me. As is 1,300 yards on the season. And the 200 attempts stat is pretty lame - he got 200+ attempts because he was getting 4+ YPC.
My bigger point is everyone basically ####ting all over McCoy when he turned in a RB1 season in 2014. He didn't get his 18 rushing TD's or 2,000+ combined yards last year, but to say he's "not that productive" is patently false from any historical context, including the history from just last year.
Again with that 200 cap man - do away with it. You don't get to put a floor of 200 carries if you want to make any legitimate point with your statistics. "He ranked 11th out of 15 on this arbitrary statistic I've come up with." He ranked 3rd overall in rushing yards last year. Who cares about "only for RB's that had more than 214 carries, and at least 40% of those carries had to come on the same days where they breast fed from their mother more than 4 times in one day as a child." The fact that there are only 15 RB's out of 30 starters who can fit your criteria says quite a bit. Why don't we cap it at 300 carries and that way you can say, "He was the least productive back by any measure for RB's with over 300 carries last year."
You want to normalize his production when he played for a full 16 games? You realize a 1,300 yard season puts you in the top 10 every year for the past 5 years and in the top 5 for 3 of those years? YPC seems like an awfully foolish tool to use - my guess is you're going to want a RB on your squad who can carry the ball 300 times in a season. Walter Payton averaged 4.4 YPC for his career. LaDainian Tomlinson averaged 4.3 YPC. You're going to tell me that McCoy's 4.2 makes him "Just a guy. "
Again, we're talking about production. The production last year... 1,319 yards, the second most productive rushing total of his career. Feel free to say otherwise, but McCoy was productive last year.
Receptions per year:
78
48
54
52
28
Seems like a pretty drastic fall there.
I'm just tired of all this bull#### "unproductive" talk. A guy like Steven Jackson was unproductive.
If you told a NFL head coach, "Here is a RB, he will get you 1,300+ yards and 4+ YPC," The coach is going to recognize that as productive because by any historic definition of RB production in the NFL - it is productive.
I certainly agree with you that Mathews + Murray is an upgrade over McCoy + Polk, but I think McCoy alone is better than either one of the guys. Both of your new guys are hurt quite often and Murray was behind an excellent Oline last year. The more and more I think about this, the more and more I think you guys are going to miss McCoy in hindsight.
Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.That is what he is implying, yes. Insanity.Just to clarify, you think that Byron Maxwell will be worse than Bradley Fletcher?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
You said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.That is what he is implying, yes. Insanity.Just to clarify, you think that Byron Maxwell will be worse than Bradley Fletcher?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.That is what he is implying, yes. Insanity.Just to clarify, you think that Byron Maxwell will be worse than Bradley Fletcher?ShaHBucks said:Brilliant moves by Sea and NE. We ignore the responsibilities that CB have in this defense. They play on an island most of the time. You're going to get toasted by the Becham Jr/Dez Bryant's of the world doing so.If you think Fletcher was bad here, wait until you see Maxwell.Bigboy10182000 said:That why I said it was interesting. Chung looked awful here and started for a SB team last season.ShaHBucks said:Two of the dumbest franchises in the leagues right there.Huge downgrades for bothCary Williams to Seattle and Bradley Fletcher to NE
Interesting
Exactly. So you implied that if we thought Fletcher sucked, wait until we see Maxwell as he will suck more. You implied Fletcher > Maxwell.There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.
You're getting a lot out of nothing I saidExactly. So you implied that if we thought Fletcher sucked, wait until we see Maxwell as he will suck more. You implied Fletcher > Maxwell.I guess we will see if your prediction is right.There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.
At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.
Maybe you should clarify what you mean.You're getting a lot out of nothing I saidExactly. So you implied that if we thought Fletcher sucked, wait until we see Maxwell as he will suck more. You implied Fletcher > Maxwell.I guess we will see if your prediction is right.There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.
At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.
What are you talking about?You're getting a lot out of nothing I saidExactly. So you implied that if we thought Fletcher sucked, wait until we see Maxwell as he will suck more. You implied Fletcher > Maxwell.I guess we will see if your prediction is right.There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.
At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.
Whatever. Initially I was thinking he's going to struggle at times in this defense just like Fletcher did, and the risk wasn't worth it. When asked to clarify, I didn't give a hot or cold answer. I gave a range of possibilities, because he could be asked to do something entirely different then what Fletcher/Williams was asked for all I know. Gone is Maxwell operating with limited space for QBs to throw. Now he's the limited athlete that he is, all alone on an island.What are you talking about?You're getting a lot out of nothing I saidExactly. So you implied that if we thought Fletcher sucked, wait until we see Maxwell as he will suck more. You implied Fletcher > Maxwell.I guess we will see if your prediction is right.There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.
At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.
You said if we thought fletcher sucked, wait until we see maxwell. Pretty sure that means he will suck. You also said BEST case he's as good as Carey Williams. I know you're trying to back pedal right now but your statement completely inferred that Fletcher was better then Maxwell.
There is no wiggle room for it not to be.Just saying, your annual eagle hatred is roaring pretty hard right now. Signing Maxwell was an improvement. You gotta pick a new team man haha
Then why cheer for them? Seems like you're generally more concerned about being bitter and right as long as the Eagles lose. i thought this type of fan mostly existed on CSN boards, not in here. But to each their own. If it makes you happy to b!tch about every move and cry about it, then I guess good for you. Just saying, you should probably pick a new team if you don't like these drastic moves, because Chip is gonna shake things up. You're clearly not on board with it, so was just trying to help your level of bitterness by suggesting a new team.Whatever. Initially I was thinking he's going to struggle at times in this defense just like Fletcher did, and the risk wasn't worth it. When asked to clarify, I didn't give a hot or cold answer. I gave a range of possibilities, because he could be asked to do something entirely different then what Fletcher/Williams was asked for all I know. Gone is Maxwell operating with limited space for QBs to throw. Now he's the limited athlete that he is, all alone on an island.What are you talking about?You're getting a lot out of nothing I saidExactly. So you implied that if we thought Fletcher sucked, wait until we see Maxwell as he will suck more. You implied Fletcher > Maxwell.I guess we will see if your prediction is right.There you have itYou said "if you think Fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell". Pretty sure that implies that "if you think X was bad, wait until you see Y because it will be worse"Or did you mean "if you think fletcher was bad, wait until you see maxwell.... he will be better then fletcher"Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but NO that's not what I'm implying. I didn't give a binary response.
At best, he's as good as Cary Williams. At worse, he is fkn disaster if he's asked to play on an island, not sheltered by the LOB and the rest of the talent SEA has.
You said if we thought fletcher sucked, wait until we see maxwell. Pretty sure that means he will suck. You also said BEST case he's as good as Carey Williams. I know you're trying to back pedal right now but your statement completely inferred that Fletcher was better then Maxwell.
For the record, I thought Cary Williams played good here battling #1 WR in today's game. I'm sure that was implied too. I'd understand if you cut him for Revis(<~ worth the risk/reward $) or something, but you didn't. The grand scheme was a giving a bunch of guaranteed money to a solid CB? Talk yourself into thinking it was a great move it all you like. I'd say you don't know much about managing risk.
There is no wiggle room for it not to be.Just saying, your annual eagle hatred is roaring pretty hard right now. Signing Maxwell was an improvement. You gotta pick a new team man haha
Because I'm not drinking the kool-aid doesn't make me a hater. I can do/say whatever I want. Get the sand out of your vag and stop crying about it.
Seriously. ....this is brutal.Whole lotta quotes going on, can we trim that down?!
Let's get search working first, then we can move on to these crazy ideas.Why can't there be some kind of option to minimize all quotes. That way you can click on them if you wan to read them but if not it's just s small one line. Kind of like the way gmail handles reply messages.
It always has to be a story
Interesting. But the question now is, after all that, why are we for sure trading Bradford to Washington in a month?
Oof, yea. Even with all the medical science advancements, football is still a macho sport and perception is everything. He may be done here if that's the case.re: Earl Wolff, Didinger said today that there was a week this year, as he was trying to come back from his injury, where he had practiced all week and the coaches were expecting him to go, and he came to them on Sunday and said he couldn't do it. Said it really soured the coaches on him. So we will see what happens with him.
RIP Chuck
hey, I'm your neighbor (A-town)Yeah I heard that too. Must have really left the team in a bind. Practice all week and then tell them he can't go day of? I'm sure that p!!ssed them off mightily.
RIP Concrete Charly
Pride of my hometown, Bethlehem Pa.
I had the 100 Greatest Tackles NFL Films video (VHS!) in the 90s when I was just getting into the game. That hit on Frank Gifford was #1. They'd interviewed some of his teammates and they said from the impact, the sound of the hit and the way he just rolled over out cold on the ground, they thought Gifford was dead.@SheilKapadia: Remembering Concrete Charlie: A roundup of Chuck Bednarik stories that are worth your time. http://t.co/jUzJxPLAsc
I thought Bednarik had killed him.
Makes sense. I had a feeling he'd gotten himself into the doghouse somehow, he just seemed to be out of the equation altogether.Oof, yea. Even with all the medical science advancements, football is still a macho sport and perception is everything. He may be done here if that's the case.re: Earl Wolff, Didinger said today that there was a week this year, as he was trying to come back from his injury, where he had practiced all week and the coaches were expecting him to go, and he came to them on Sunday and said he couldn't do it. Said it really soured the coaches on him. So we will see what happens with him.
RIP Chuck
Never understood the big deal about that hit - it wasn't that hard, Gifford unfortunately landed on his back and banged his head hard on the ground.I had the 100 Greatest Tackles NFL Films video (VHS!) in the 90s when I was just getting into the game. That hit on Frank Gifford was #1. They'd interviewed some of his teammates and they said from the impact, the sound of the hit and the way he just rolled over out cold on the ground, they thought Gifford was dead.@SheilKapadia: Remembering Concrete Charlie: A roundup of Chuck Bednarik stories that are worth your time. http://t.co/jUzJxPLAsc
I thought Bednarik had killed him.